[J_

CK

1 0 5 0 5 2

MRC/(ABQ-R-1208

--_
,.

Revised October' 1989

Copy /_.

Mission Research Corporation

SIMULATION

AND THEORY

RADIAL EQUILIBRIUM
FINAL REPORT

OF

OF PLASMOID

PROPAGATION,

Mark M. Campbell
Randy M. Clark
Michael A. Mostrom

September

1989

41
_

Prepared

for:

Lawrence Livermore
Post Office Box 808
Livermore,

CA

National

Laboratory

94550

-=_
-

7"'

Under

Contract'

B052997

(1_

_- :i',_gg_

_.
_

Prepared

by'

MISSION RESEAR,Cft
cORPORATION
1720 Randolph
Road, SE.
Albuquerque,
NM 87106-4245

lm

E.,I,:_ l F_I_U_JC)N

Of= IF-IIC_

tDO_:Ut_'tL:2i,,IT

I_ I_jt_I_iMI_I-EID

lii,_( 'l,..tlM I':1t

\_i'lirk
lilt, iii
lilt)

iii

lli, rt'llrlili,
J{lii'rl4)

ll iln(lt, r Ilil'

li)

illl(tt, r t'iililrill'l

I lii_

(li;('lllllt,

iii

iiii_lilt'l'_

iii' lilt,

I,iil_rt,

lll't,

lilliliht,

r'ltli'-74(l._-l_;,_(i-4bl,

lll

J,itt, rlllllrt,

t_ii_i lirt.,lillrt,(I

ii_

I_._,

I)lolliirl

Niill(lllilJ

illi

ilt't'qilllll

(if

t_lrl_

Sl)(ill_ilirt,(I
li)Jill
ilt4t'lll')
llf lilt' I illill'(J
_l'llht.'r
lhr' I iililt'fl
_liilL's
(;lll'l, riiliil,lil

_lllll, il (illll, rlllnt,

imr Ihl, I !iiJ_i'rsJl)

('lilit'lirlilii

t,llillhi)'l'i,s,

Illilkt's

,_,iili)

il'14111 Ihihllil)

Iliir

llll)

i,\llrt,_s

(lr inililit,

sihilil)

J'ilr ltir,

ilif(irlliilliiill,

iii

lhr'lr

ll, ibr ilS_lllllt

ilt'_'llril('),

l'iililllh!It'lll.',is,

ill)lilir.iil_ls,

ri'llrtsl,

lilS

lhill

ril41ils,

lll, tl, rt, lit'l,

il('l_,, lirlli'i'_,s,

ils

llrllihlt'l,

use, _(lill(I
Iii, rr, hi

(lr si, rll('i.,

ilill

lqi fin)

llrllt'l,,_s

hifriill4t'

(lll_l'rlinil'lil

_il,_ _ iin(I iillhitiiliS

_,liril)

_liili,

tit Ilii,
ll(ht'rlislnl4

lit

(ii' ilillliilrs

lir rl, tlt,t.i

I'iii_t,r_,ll)

lhr,

I!liht,r_Jl)

liri_iill'l)

t, Xlirt,_it,(I

Ilili_it , iii' Ihl, I :liill,

iii' ('lilil'ilrnJii,

(lr lir(_(lli('(

t'lld(lrSi.'lll_'ll|

lllill

rt'iilJ

('lilllllrliJii,
(ili_t,
li('

'

iit,('t,_i rlinll,

ilSl,(I

/
i-

lht'

(iii lilll

lllll

iii Jlillll)
lhl, I !nill'll

lit, rr'hl

llllrli(ist,

liril(I -

tlliililil'ill'-

d ,_iliilt,_,
_lilill

lir

(il_llt'll

Irilili'llillrk,

(if

ill' Jill)

(IJ_i'hl_l,(I,

lllrt.,r, (lr iilllt, l'tli_it,, (hit,'_ Illil ill't't,_,_llrJl$

t'iillSlillllt'
lls C'liihlr_i, nl(,lil,
rt,t'iiliinit, nillilJ(in,
(lr l'litllrili_
li)
_liilt,_

II

(lr rt, slilill-

Sllt, t'it'il ' ('qllllilli,

Jl,_ IriliJl.' ill'.lnt',

nl,
iii

iili,% ttlirl'lllll),

iii" ilSi, l'llhlt,_i

qir

I.iihilrli-

lil
J'iir

s,

li/

O_

ii

A
V

b
UCRL-CR--105052
DE91

000803

ABSTRACT
P

Cases _imulating

beam currents

to about 29 MA were done. Significant

tion and code speed-up were achieved for these cases. The net current
i

lower beam current

A_slight deviation

(I,,t ~ I_/_)
in the expected

continued

noise reduc-

scaling observed at

to hold up well, as did the equilibrium

thickness and radialstructure

of the current

itself.

layer was

observed, however. A laminar flow model is developed that appears to give good agreement
with the simulation

results.

Suggestions for future work are discussed briefly.

lr

i
t

MAS ER
4!;, 'i _,'",lBI....]-II('_N

(';[:

]ill

,..,
'.-;:

......

:..

ib/tlJE.t.:
::t.,l ] tS LJi',li..

CONTENTS
L

Section

Page

1,0

INTRODUCTION

2.0

RESULTS OF 1.8-28.8 MA SIMULATIONS

3.0

LAMINAR FLOW EQUILIBRIUM

4.0

CONCLUSIONS

31

5.0

FUTURE

32

MODEL

26

WORK

REFERENCES

33

Appendix
A

LOW-MODERATE
AT AFWL

BEAM-CURRENT

iii

SIMULATION

RESULTS

A-1

FIGURES

o
Figure
1

Page
Periodic simulation results comparing azimuthal magnetic field Be (B3,
0.6 kG) versus radial position X2 = R (X2, cre) at ct = 400 cm for two
runs with h = 1.8 MA, (a) run AA, (b) run AB (hollow beam), NOTE
CHANGE IN X2 SCALING.

Periodic simulation results comparing Er (E2, 0.51 ' MeV/cm) versus R

(X2, cre) at ct=400 cm for two runs with h = 1.8 MA. (a) run AA,
(b) run AB (hollow beam), NOTE CHANGE IN X2 SCALING.

Periodic simulation results comparing axially-integrated

Jx versus R
(X2, cm) at ct
400 cm for two runs with h = 1.8 MA. (a)run AA,
(b) run AB (hollow beam), NOTE CHANGE IN X2 SCALING.

Time averaged
h= 1.8 MA.

current

profile for run AA near end of run with

Time aver_.ged current profile for run AB (hollow beam) near end of
run with h = 1.8 MA.
Periodic simulation
for h = 7.2 MA.

AC, B, (B3, 0.6 kG) versus R (cm) at ct = 500

Periodic simulation AC, E, (E2, 0.51 MeV/cm)

ct = 500 cm for h = 7.2 MA.

cm

10

versus R (X2, cm) at

11

10

Periodic simulation AC, axially.integrated

ct = 500 cm for h = 7.2 MA.
Time averaged current
h = 7.2 MA.

.T_versus R (X2, cm) at

12

profile for run AC near end of run with

13

Periodic simulation AD, B0 (B3, 0.6 kG) versus R (X2, cm) at

ct = 200 crn for h = 28.8 MA.

14
@

iv

11

Periodic simulation AD,/_, (E2, 0..51 MeV/cm)

ct :- 200 cm for I_ = 28.8 MA.

versus R (X2, cm)at

15
r

12

13

Periodic simulation
for/b= 28.8 MA.

AD, axially-integrated

J, versus R at ct = 200 cm
16

Time averaged current profile for run AD near end of run with
I_ = Oo
.o.8 MA.

17

14

'rime averaged current profile comparing

15

Net currentas itscales

to thesquarerootofbeam current.

19

16

Simulationresuits
showingnet currentfordifferent
beam currents.

20

17

Simulation results showing the square root of the beam current for
different
beam currents.

21

Periodic
simulation
results
comparingtime historyand frequency
spectrum ofthe netcurrentfortwo runs.Ib= 1.8MA. Currentin
unitsof 1.35kA, frequencyinunitsofCOo= 3 x i0lrad/s.(a)run AA,
(b)run AB (hollow beam).

22

Periodic
simulation
AC, timehistoryand frequency
spectrum ofthenet
current.
I_= 7.2MA. Currentinunitsof1.35kA, frequencyinunitsof
tj0= 3 x 10Irad/s.

23

Periodic
simulation
AD, timehistoryand frequency
spectrumofthe net
current.
I_= 28.8MA. Currentinunitsof1.35kA, frequencyinunits
ofCOo= 3 x i0xrad/s.

24

Particle
distribution
pha,qe-space
plotofaxialmomentum (Pl - B,_/)
versusradialposition
(X2, cre).
Left-handplotissheathelectrons,
right-handplotisbeam electrons.
(a)and (b) 1.8MA run AB at
ct=400cm.
(c)and(d) 7.2MA run AC at ct=500cm.
(e)and
(f)28.8MA run AD atct= 200 cm.

25

Periodic
simulation
results
comparingB0 versusr atct= 3000 cm for
threeruns withI_= 22.5kA. (a)run AA, (b)run AB, (c)run AL.

A-7

18

19

20

21

A-I

different I_ for five runs.

18

T
E

A-2

Periodic
simulation
results
comparingE, versusr at ct= I000cm for
three, runs with I_ = 22.5 kA. (a) run AA, (b) run AB, (c) run AL.

A-8

Periodic simulation results comparing axially-integrated

Jj versus r at
ct = 3000 cm for three runs with I_ = 22.5 kA. (a) run AA, (b) run AB,
(c) run AL.

A-9

A-4

Time averaged current profile in steady state for ,runs at I, = 22.5 kA.

A-10

A-5

Periodic simulation results comparing B0 versus r at ct = 400 cm for

eight runs with Ib =: 452 kA. (a) run BAl, (b) run BA2, (c) run BC,
(d) run BD, (e) run BE, (f) run BF, (g) run BG, (h) run BI.

A-11

OI

Periodic simulation results comparing Er versus r at ct = 400 cm for

eight runs with h = 452 kA. (a) run BAl, (b) run BA2, (c) run BC,
(d)run BD, (e)run BE, (f)run BF, (g)run BG, (h)run BI.

A-12

OJ

BG, (h) run BI.

A-13

O_

Periodic simulation results comparing Be versus r at late times for six

runs with h = 452 kA, (a) run BAl at ct = 2000 cm, (b) run BA2 at
ct = 2000 cre, (c) run BC at ct = 2000 cm, (d) run BD at ct = 20oo cre,
(e) run BE at c,' = 1.,00cre, (f) run BF at ct = 1600 cm.

A-14

O/

Periodic simulation results comparing E' versus r at late times for six
runs with h = 452 kA. (a) run BAl at ct = 2000 cre, (b) run BA2at
ct = 2000 cre, (c) run BC at ct = 2000 cre, (d) run BD at ct = 2000 cm,
(e) run BE at ct = 1600 cre, (f) run BF at ct = 1600 cm.

A-15

O/

A-3

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

,%-11

OI

Periodic
simulation
results
comparingaxially-integrated
J, versusr at
ct= 400 cm foreightrunswith I,= 452 kA. (a)run BA, (b)run BAl,
(c) run BA2, (d) run BC, (e) run BD, (e) run BE, (f)run BF, (g) run

Periodic simulation results comparing axially-integrated

Jj versus r at
late times for six runs with I_ = 452 kA. (a) run BAl at ct = 2000 cre,
(b)run BA2 atct= 2000cre,(c)run BC at ct= 2000cm, (d)run BD
at ct = 2000 cm, (e) run BE at ct = 1600 cre, (f) run BF at ct = 1600 cm.A-16
Time averaged current profile in steady state for runs at/_

= 452 kA.

Or

A-17

O_

vi

O
i

A-12

Periodic simulation BB at late and early times for Ib = 1808 kA,

(a) axlally-integrated Jj versus r at ct = 2000 cm, (b) B0 versus r at
c$ = 2000 cm, (c) Er versus ratct
= 2000 cre, (d) axially-integrated
J,
versus r at ct := 400 cre, (e) B0 versus r at ct - 400 cm, (f) E, versus r
at ct = 400 cm.

A-18

Time averaged current profile for run BB near end of run with
h = 1808 kA.

A-19

A-14

Time averaged current profile comparing different I, for three runs.

A-20

A'15

Net current as it scales to the square root of beam current.

A-21

k-13

'

A-16

A-17

A-18

Periodic simulation results comparing time history and frequency

spectrum of the net current for two runs with a different number of
axial cells, h = 22.5 kA. Current in units of 1.35 kA, frequency in units
of w0 = 3 101 rad/s. (a) run AA with 129 axial cells, (b) run AL with
two axial cells.

A'22

Periodic simulation BF, time history and frequency spectrum of the net
current, h = 452 kA. Current in units of 1.35 kA, frequency in units of
Wo = 3 101 rad/s.

A-23

Periodic simulation Bn, time history and frequency spectrum of the net
current. I_ = 1808 kA. Current in units of 1.35 kA, frequency in units
of w0 = 3 10l rad/s.

A-24

vii
b

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Using our earlier test data (reproduced in Appendix A), _rlorder to reduce noise in
the high-current cases we increased the number of particles per cell to 375 for the sheath,
used radial curreltt smoothing Over three adjacent cells and eliminated current inside the
axial cell (R _- 0) to reduce the fictitious spike near the axis. This decreased the fluctuation
amplitude by about a factor of three and made estimation of the average current values
from the plots much easier.
f

O
The summary plots shown here are in the same format as those in Appendix A but
continue the beam-current analyzed on to much higher levels. The trends are essentially
as expected.
e
We have completed a laminar-flow equilibrium model that predicts the radial profile
of the axial velocity of electrons and the relationship between azimuthal magnetic field
and radial electric field. Specific predictions are obtained for the net current and ion-beam
Q

temperature necessary for equilibrium. In ali cases the a_;:eement between the model
predictions and the ISiS simulations is excellent. The model also predicts parameter
scallngs which have not yet been tested in the simulations and, therefore, need further
verification.

2.0

Table

RESULTS OF 1.8-28.8 MA SIMULATIONS

1 describes the simulation

parameters and selected results for the new runs

carried out in August 1989. We have also included a few older simulations
in some of the summary

plots.

In ali these runs, the axial velocity of the ion beam was

_,_ = ,0.62, the annulus between the beam and the conducting

was T_ = 43.2 kV

at the end of the research in Ref. 1).

Cases were run at 1.8 MA for both a normal configuration

esting inner region of the beam, which usually shows (nearly)

O
and one with the uninterzero net current,

replaced

with a particle reflecting metal boundary at R = 25 cm (see Figs. 1-5). These cases
agreed within ~ 10 percent, so higher currents were run with this feature which decreases
the simulations

time by about 40 percent.

the net current

increases roughly as the square root of the beam current,

115 MA case (which might require 15-20 CPU hours) was not undertaken
The width of the nonzero net current region, which had previously
-_ "h,_,_T"l/2,
continues

we were able
but a

due to the cost.

scaled above 100 kA

its rapid decrease for h,_,_ _> 7 MA, (Figs. 4, 5, 9,

and 13). The radial current profiles of these and some lower current
are superimposed

Because the CPU run time to steady state for

to run the 7.2 MA and 28.8 MA cases readily (Figs. 6-9 and 10-13, respectively)

as approximately

pipe wall was filled with

plasma at five times the beam density, and the ion beam temperature
(the same as concluded

that are used

in Fig. 14. Ali cases continued

cases run previously

to exhibit approximately

the same net

current scalir_g (L,,t ~ 'be_,_rl/2,

Figs. 15-17) as observed at lower currents.
The radial structure

of the sheath region is more complex than earlier thought,

in earlier run_ masked this structure.

the sheath

(e.g., Fig. 14, 1.8-18.8

region is a local over-neutralization

sheath electron cyclotron
innermost

A negative

Noise

current region at the inside edge of

MA) became more obvious

at higher currents.

of the current at the edge of the beam electrons.

orbit about B, imparts a large axial velocity component.

This
The
At its

radial position there is some overlap with original beam electrons which have

not yet been lost tothe

position overneutralize

wall (see Fig. 21). Also, the sheath electrons

the beam charge, form a virtual cathode

O:

at their inner radial

(reverses the sign of Er),

and loose ali their energy (Figs. 2la, c, and e). In this "mixing" region the sheath electrons
lose energy and axial momentum

and the original beam electrons gain it (see Fig. 21d-f).

The complicated phase space of the beam electrons (Figs. 21b, d, and f)'as they leave
radially is due to the field reversal of Er and Be in the sheath region just inside the beam
edge. Er and B0 have very similar radial profiles and go to zero at the same radial position
(Figs. 1 and 2, 6 an,_.7, and 10 and 11).

D
No significant compression or expansion of the ion beam was observed in any of these
runs, so we postulate that the equilibrium ion-beam temperature is relatively independent
of current.
O
Figures 18-20 show that a steady state has been rea_ed at least in the net current.
The noise has been substantially reduced over the level observed in the earlier simulations
reported on in Appendix A.
@

3
O

OI

O_

TABLE 1. SIMULATION

RESULTS AND PARAMETERS.

,,

@_
LLNL Plasmotd
Run
lD _
Ib
AA
-1.8 MA
AB
1.8 MA
AC
7,2MA
AD 28.8MA
AL
BE
BB

Propagation
Cell
Size
(cm)
0,1
0.I
0.05
0,025

Results August 1989

Number
Radlal
......

X2MIN
-0,05
25
25
25

X2MAX
53.25
51.8
50.25
50.25

Cells
533
268
505
1010

22.5"'kA Run"done at AFWL Aug--Oct1988

452 kA
Run done at AFWL Aug-Oct 1988
1.8 mA
Run done at AFWL Aug-Oct 1988

Net CurrentResultsatDifferent
RadilrsPositions
Run ID
Radius
AL
BE
BB
AA
AB
AC
AD
54
i0.96:3:{}9"
-35.14
52.8
-9.57
51
40.17
50.3
56.16
50.125
-23,38
50
67.84
93.97
49
99.77 191.58 372.52
48
10.99 41.05
95.87
86.1
47.75
67.15
47.7
97.81
47.5
75.34
76.3
36.53
44
35,!
ii.51
40
9.02 12.1
10.82 -20,8
30
-0.67
-1.78
6,01
28
4.06
-I.II
-1.73
16
0.6

I 0.96
I
!

-9.8
-0.02

0,15

0)

@i

Ot

Oi

01

OI

.0,03

4
O

I 0 --I
4 .36

O
2.69

_I,

02

_ ' ,

--0
-2 64
.5
--0. I

', ','

1:
I 3. 3

26. 6
X2 _

'

'

39. 9

, ,

53.2

(a)
_21.%9

1 .62

II

"" 0
C::13

36

-0.91
0

-2.

18
25.0

,51 . 7

58.4
X2

45.

51 .8

(b)

Figure 1 Periodic simulation results comparing azimuthal magnetic field B0 (B3, 0.6 kG)
versus radialposition X2 = R (X2, cre) at ct = 400 cm for two runs with
0

A = _.sMA. (4 runAA,(b) r_nAB(hollow

b,am), NOTECHANGEINX2
SCALING.

4.98

--

--2.28
--..3.62
25.0

.31 .7

I
.38.4
X2

o,

I
45.

51.8

O"

(b}

Figure 2. Periodic simulation resultscomparir,g E, (E2,0.51 MeV/cre) versusR (X2, cm)

atct=400cm fortworunswithIb= 1.8MA. (a)runAA, (b)runAB (hollow
beam),NOTE CHANGE IN X2 SCALING.

. 10

-1

d 1-- I NT 1

1. 7 o

1_

1 .04

,._.

Zo

38

-0.29
,,_lJ

-0.95

O. 0

1
1._3..3

I
26.
X2

I
6

t _1
53. 2

.39 . 9

(a)

*1.I(_ -I
I

JI--INTI
I

I.,

0.42

_t

--

51 .8

e
_

'

im

--0.76

--

--1 .35
25.0

I
,.31 .7

I
,38.4
X2

4.5.

(b)
Figure
O

3. Periodic simulation results comparing axially-integrated

J_ versus R (X2, cre)
at ct = 400 cm for two runs with I_ = 1.8 MA. (a) run AA, (b) run AB (hollow
beam},

Iv

NOTE

CHANGE

IN X2 SCALING.

OI

0
8
r

9
0
'1

q_,

q,

5 1.%2'1 .........

-5.

12
25.0

_I

1
3 1 3

'

37.6
X2

.f

4.5.9

50.2

Figure 6. Periodic simulation AC, B, (B3, 0.6 kG) versus R (cm) at ct = 500 cm for
A = 7;2 MA.

0_

10
A
W

-O

45

18

'

'

[_O. 81
@

--1

.44

--

--2 ,07
25.0

,,

, I
31.3

37

x'2

43.9

50.2

Figure7. Periodic
simulation
AC, E, (E2,0.51MeV/cm) versusR (X2,cre)atct =
500cm forIb= 7.2MA,
@

@
11
@

_'1.(_ 7 "1

J l-INTI

I .32

_Zo. 43
I

q,-,.,.

-2.

18
0

-3.94
25:0

31 .3

37.

X2

43.9

50.2

Figure 8. Periodic simulation AC, axially-lntegrated Jx versus R (X2, cm) at ct = 500 cm

for Ib = 7.2 MA.
O

12
_a

II

lS
II

,1_--1
9.
1

90
OI

_0

O0

-4

91

82 ....
25.0

I
51.5

I
57.6
X2

l
45.9

50.2

Figure 10. Periodic simulation AD, B0 (B3, 0.6 kG) versus R (X2, cre) at ct - 200 cm
for Ib = 28,8 MA,
O

O
14

1 .02
i

--0.86

--4.61

--

-6.4.8
25.0

1
,31. ,3

I
,37.6
X2

I
4,.3.9

50.2

Figure11,Periodic
simulation
AD, Er (E2,0,51MeV/cm) versusR (X2,cm) at ct=
200cm forI,= 28,8MA,

O
15

1.34

--1 .56
25.0

.....

jI-INT1
I ..........

I
51 . 3

i
,.57.6
X2

oi

45.9

50.

Figure 12. Periodic simulation AD, axially-integrated Jj versus r at ct = 200 cm for

I_ = 28,8 MA,

@i

0_

01

16

Q,

17

L_

Z
0

.................

io

__

.
_

N
o

(va) .LN_-t_n3

'

18
0

19
O

(v'4) _LN-a_sno

20
O

21
O

PLASMA

SHEATH

RUN

AAi

'_L
_L-'

VB,,m,63, _B_'Oc_2"NP'8,EIO,

VTH(2)'=O30

........
_/J,ii___

o,

oo
lO

.o!
Sp

..

1o 8

"7

10

.IT'

"_

1o '
2
100,

,
,

O0 L

'

i
0,74

_^,,, _,_ ,,A _L._,

,/_
,

1,47

2,21

2 '-J4

,Q

FREO
(a I

Figure

TIME-

400.20000

I8. Periodic simulation results comparing time history and frequency spectrum
of the net current for two runs. I_ = 1.8 MA. Current in units of 1.35 kA,
frequency in units of _)o = 3 l01 rad/s. (a) run AA, (b) run AB (hollow
beam).
22

PLASMA

SHEATH

RUN AC,

189,

VBI.B3.

NB-O,2.NPL32,ElO,VTH(2)"0,30
21480

'

142,

_ 9s
47,

'o,

10
1o 10
9i
11

_25,'

oo
_005

,1
25o.

'

"

_.47

2FREQ
95

4 42

590
500,

29920

Figure 19. Periodic simulation AC, ttme history and frequency spectrum of the aet; current.
h = 7.2 MA. Current in units of 1,35 kA, frequency in units of
w0 = 3 101 rad/s.

O
23

5o,

TIME=

1
_7_.

@
PLASMA

SHEATH

RUN

AD,

VB =-,63,

NB;6Oc_2"NP'I

,3E12,VTH(2)=O.

30

263
351,

_175
.=

88'

0'0,

,q

50,

....

iO0.

150,

_"/LA="

200,

1o

!
_=

10 0 5

1 ,47

2,94 _,,
F'REQ

--

4,42
TIME,=

@I

@_

5.89
200.

04000

Figure 20. Periodic simulation AD, time history and frequency spectrum of the net current. h = 28.8 MA. Current in units of 1.35 kA, frequency in units of

OJ

_0 = 3 x 101_ad/s.
@

@
24

ti

L .....
X2

'

21.

I .......

>'2

{e)
Figure

(f)

Particle distribution
phase-space
plot of axial momentum
(Pl =_ fl,_) versus
radial position (X2, cm). Left-hand
plot is sheath electrons, right-hand
plot is
beam electrons.
(a) and (b) 1.8 MA run An at ct - 4oo cm. (c) and (d) 7.2 MA
run AC at ct = 500 cm. (e) aad (f) 28.8 MA run AD at ct = 200 cm,
25

3.0

LAMINAR FLOW EQUILIBRIUM

MODEL

@1

We propose a laminar flow model (similar to a model that has been used for magnetic
insulation

calculations 2) as a first simple description

plasmold.

By "lamlnar"

now in the plasmold

surface colnctdlng

equilibrium

In the

e_

we mean that vr = 0, Nevertheless_ we assume that all electrons

of radius rb wereborn

with a conducting

gives the usual relativistic

of the electron

at zero energy on a zero-potential

( = 0)

pipe at radius R. _ rb. Energy conservation

then

factor

,y-i=

(1)

where e (> 0) and m are the electron charge and mass. The ton-beam density n; and the
axial velocity v,; are assumed to be free parameters
v_ = 0 for r > rb. Conservation

independent

of axial canonical momentum

of radius for r < rb and

for the plasmoid electrons

gives
eL
P, - ",/mu, - eA, = 0

(2)

where we have taken the vector potential

A_ = 0 at the = 0 surface.
e_

The radial electric field is defined in terms of the potential

E, = .- d_
=
dr

mc' d'_
e dr

by

(3)

and is given la terms of the plazrn_ sources by Potsson's equation

rd"_

r_r

(0

'

Thus, using Eqs. 3 and 4 the electron density is

n,-

e2 rdf
eornc21d

r_r
(d'7)

+ni

(5)

26
e

The azimuthal

magnetic

field Is defined la terms of the vector' potential

from Eq, 2

by

'

d
md
B, = -_.rA_, = -----("/u,)
e dr

(6)

e
Combined with Er from Eq, 3 this gives the radial fore.balance
which gives Er _ obe In agreement

with the ISIS simulation

equation

results,

E_ - v, Bo = O,

Ampere's

law relates

Be to the plasma sources by

e

1_
= .o_(_,_.,- .,v.) ,
r dr (_B,)
e

Substituting

--

rld[d
dr

(_)

Be from Eq, 6 Into Eq, 7 gives

_ (_..)]/Zoe'
+ _rr_ (_,;..,-.,,..)= o ,

Substituting

(s)

the electron density n. from Eq, 5 into Eq, 8 gives a second-order

nonlinear differential

equation

radial

for the electron velocity v.:

e
For simplicity

we analyze the nonrelativistic

llnearlzes the equation,

@

effects, valid for rwh/c _

1, Defining

y = v. - v._ and z _ (r - rb)Wb/C, Eq, 9 reduces to

d2y
dx---_
= y

We also ignore cylindrical

limit 3 _ 1, valid for us <":.c, which

(z < O)

which has the general solution

(10)
y = c1" + c2e-_o To keep y finite for large negative

(r _. rh), we require c_ = 0, Outside the beam, v.i = 0 and n_ may be different thun inside
the beam, Defining A2 - n_(r > rh)/ni(r
@

d_v,
dx---T = A_v,

< rh), the electron velocity is

(x > 0)

(11)
27

whichhasthegeneral
solution
v,= 0ae
A'+ _4e"_',We assume(r_- rb)Awb/a
:_ i (many
plasmasklndepthsbetweenbeam and wall),To keepu, finite
forlargepositive
x, we
require
as= O,Thus,thevelocity
Isdescribed
by

_,=

(12)

_4e
"_" ' (_
> o)
(z<O)

Becausethepotentlal
and itsderlvatlve,
theelectric
field,
must be continuous
atJthe
beam edgex = O,thisdefines
thetwo constants
and Zlves

VA=
v.

---e'
(x < o,r < r_)
i - I + ),
--I-l+Ae -_" (_ > o,r >rb)

(13)

Thus, at the x = 0 (r = rb) the velocity ts

O_

v,(r= rb) i
v,_

- ---1+A

(I,_)

whichIssmallIfA :_i,whilev,---+
v,iforA -,O,

OJ

Several relationships fbllow from this ann,lysis. From Eq, 6, the magnetic field at the
beam edge Is
mv,_ A

O,

Be(r= ,'b)
= e ,,i+ ,x
_b

(I_)

which vanishes for A --+ 0 and approaches a constant for A _ 1, The net current In the
beam Is
I
A
1'.. (r = rb) - 2___rb
BO(r : rb) = _ I._/_.,1 + A (rbCZb/C)
where

lA _ 47rmc/el._o= 17 kA, Using the relation

(16)
O"

28
O

where I_isthe Ionbeam current,

Eq, 16 reducesto

I_ h(r+)=I+/_

"

'

(_)

(ts)

The azlmuthalmagneticfi,_+Id
exertsa confining
pressure
B_(r+)/2_o
on theionbeam
@

which must be counteredInequilibrium

by a finite
Ion-beam pressure
P_ = B_T+,Using
Eq. 13 and equatingthesetwo pressures,
theionbeam densitycancelsfrom theequation,
leavingonlyan expression
forthe iontemperature

'

(19)

This Impliesthat the ion beam tsgenerally

quitehot in equilibrium
with (v_)i
h/v._=
ii

Al(1 + A),
i

These theoretical

predictions

existing ISIS simulations,

@

are specific and In some cases can be compared

with

The square of the net current lint, divided by the beam current

I_, gs plotted versus I_ for the simulation results In Fig, 17, and the result ts indeed constant
at approximately

5 kA independent

of beam current,

For ali of our plasmold simulations

(here and in Ref, 1), we used an Ion drift velocity of J_i = 0,62, For ali but the earliest
'

simulations

In Ref, 1, we use a plasma density between the wall and beam equal to five

'@

times the beam density, or A = V_, Therefore, Eq. 18 gives a predicted

value of 5,03 kA

for the constant of proportionality between I_t(r_) and I,. Moreover, Eq, lg gives a
predicted Ion-beam temperature for equilibrium of T# - 46.9 kV. In the ISIS simulations
In Ref. 1, we varied _ _zld empirically found that 43 kV gave a good equilibrium for beam
@

currents

of 22.5 kA, 112,5 kA, and 452 kA. In our present

research reported

here, this

same value of 43 kV was used for the ion-beam temperature in ali of the simulations and no
noticeable contraction
@

or expansion of the ion beam was observed,

are excellent, particularly when the wide range of beam currents I, = 22.,5 kA-28.8 MA Is
considered,

29
A

These two agreements

The radial profile of the electron axial velocity In Eq, 13 also can be compared with
simulation, In ali of the MRG ISIS simulations, A was large (usually A_ = 5), The
description of the electron velocity v. in gq, 13 Is consistent with, the sin'ml_tion results in
that v./v.# was small at the beam edge _ = 0 and Increased rapidly over a few beam skirt
depths e/Wb until v. _ v._ tn the beam Interior, The near equality of Er and _B0 In the
simulations also ISconsistent with the laminar flow model used here,

Several
scaling
predictions
remaintobe verified,
One trendapparent
fromEq, 13,
but notyetverified
by computersimulation,
isthatvuat thebeam edgeincreases
as A
decreases and vj(r = rb) --* v_ as A _ 0, From Eq, 15, the magnetic field at the beam
edgeIs proportional
toA forA _ I,and saturates
ata constant
forA _ I,The constant

ofproportionality
iabetweenl_ei(rh
)and Ib,

is linearly proportional to the ion beam axial velocity _r._which was never varied from (},62
in our series of simulations, There is also a strong dependence of I_ on A, For A_ 1,
Ia Is proportional to A_--that ts, to the ratio of exterior plasma density to beam density,
Combined with Eq, 18, this predicts l..(r_) r #_/_(r > rb), or to the number of e,_terior
plasma skin depths across the beam, For A :_ 1, as in the simulations, I.et(rb) cz r#x/_,
or to the number of beam skin depths across the beam, The Ion-beam temperature for

equilibrium is extremely sensitive to parameters, It Is proportional to fl_ and, for A ._ 1,

to A2, For A :_ 1, lt saturates at (T_)r._ = 1/2 mv_;, These changes in scaling should be
verified by simulation,
@

3O
O

4,0

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing
thebeam currentto 28,8MA does not appeaxtostrongly
affect
theequlllbrlumscalingdiscussed
inour earlier
reports,While thereissome indlcation
thatthe

currentsheaththickness
isnow not decreasing
as rapidlyat higherbeam currentas at
lowervalues,
thenet currentstill
scales
asIn.,~ /_/._m,
The beam temperaturerequired
forequilibrium
appearstoremainconstantat43 kV independentofbeam current,

To trytoshed llght
on theobservedscallngs
intheISIScode results,
we completeda
laminarflowmodel ofthe electrons,
Specific
predictions
were obtainedforradialprofiles
aswellasforthenet currentand the ion-beaxn
temperaturenecessaryforequilibrium,
In
allcases,
the predictions
agreedverywellwith the ISISsimulations,
and new parameter

scalings
were broughtout which shouldbe verified.

31
A

OI

5,0

FUTURE

WORK

There are many beam and background plasma paramvters

equilibrium.

that affect the plasmotd

In spite of having carried out extensive and complex simulations over the last

two years, some of these parameters have remained fixed. The laminar flow model pre-

@l

sented here indicates several interesting parameter scallngs that, if verified, would further
our confidence in this model, We could continue simulations on to higher currsnts, but we
believe that this scaling is adequately
28,8 MA.

For instance,

R = 32 cre) and limiting

probably

verified over the present range of I, -

by moving the metal

Ucore" boundary

the plasma sheath thickness

to larger radius

(i.e.,

temperature

to four Debye lengths we could

to result. A set of 7 MA cases allcwtng variation in beam Ion

and velocity, sheath electron temperature,

would indicate how sensitive the high-current equilibrium

further test the laminar flow model in new areas.

If an analytic model can be found that adequately

fastest growing two-stream-like
thc _xial direction

instability

sufficiently to determine

and sheath thickness

is to these parameters

predicts

and density

the wavelength

of the

we should be able to resolve one wavelength

a growth rate at moderately

@1

and would

in

high (_, 2 MA)

This would provide a useful data polnt in the regime where the "mixing" region

thickness is much less than the be_n radius and whether or not it stays that way with the
instability

OI

run a 115 MA case to t = 100 (3,3 ns) In about 15 CPU hours, but we ex-

pect little new information

current.

22,5 kA-

present.

32
E

O _

REFERENCES

1. M. A. Mostrom and M. M. Campbell, "Equilibrium and Microstability of Plasmoid

Propagation," MRC/ABQ-R-1026, Mission Research Corporation, Albuquerque,
NM, May 1988.
t
2. M. A. Mostrom, M. E. Jones and L. E. Thode, "Magnetically Insulated Plasma
Sheath in Coaxial Transmission lines with an External Magnetic Field," J. Appl.
Phys. 52 (3), March 1981.
O

33
O

APPENDIX
Q

LOW-MODERATE

1989.
A.i

BEAM, CURRENT

SIMULATION

RESULTS

AT AFWI

Following
isanexcerptfrom thequarterly
progress
reportforSeptember1988-April

SIMULATION

RESULTS

time (by a factor of _- 40) we have used a "nearly

To reduce computation

l-D"

model to generate equilibria. Cases for plasmoid propagation with ion currents ranging
from 22 kA to 1.8 MA have been run thus far. This corresponds to the number of skin
Q

depths across the beam, wb,r_/c, in the range 2.9 to 26.0, respectively.

During the course

of simulating higher currents, we noted that noise levels in the diagnostics increased with
the current to a point that made interpretation
very difficult by 1.8 MA. Increasing
the current further
O

to > 7 MA would produce nearly unreadable

decided to try reducing

CRAY) weredone

the noise to acceptable

levels.

changing the number of grid points,

the number of particles-per-cell

in the axial direction

results.

We, therefore,

A series of runs (on the AFWL

the "current smoothing"
(X1, the dimension

and/or

that is being

approximately eliminated)and
in the radial direction (X2). Most of these tests were done
at 22 kA where the run time was short but the noise level still easily observable. The

"current smoothing"
of particles-per-cell

namelist parameters
were adjusted

for X1 and X2 (NSM1, NSM2) and the number

separately

or concurrently.

much more than 10 particles per cell and extensive smoothing

reduced the noise considerably
O

parameters

We conclude that

having

with NSM1 = 1, NSM2 = 3

with only two cells (three grid points) in Xl.

This set of

increased the running time by about a factor of two to four over the original

case, which still extrapolates

to a run time for a 7 MA case of about 8 hours, a high but

acceptable cost. We then set up a run at a current of 7.2 MA which had run on the AFWL
CRAY to about one-fourth
O

of the equilibration

time when the "free" SD I computer

account was shut down due to lack of funds. Results at that point were not close enough
to equilibrium

to provide meaningful values.

account has not materialized

(Our expectation

after several months.)

results of our efforts on the other cases to date.

Q

A-1
O

charge

of further

funding of this

The following figures describe

the

A.I.1

LOW CURRENT:

h = 22.5 kA (e.g., rb = 49 cm and n# = 109 cm -s)

We begin our series of runs using the particle-in-cell

Alamos National

Laboratory.

Results and parameters

code, ISIS 5.0, developed at Los

used in this series can be found in

Table A-1. Since we were running ISiS at the Weapons Laboratory

felt it was necessary

for the first time, we

to rerun a previous case to insure the validity of future results.

chose LANL run AM (h = 22.5 kA) as our comparison

AA (Table A-l), we reran the simulation
LANL case AM (Figs. A-la-A-3a).

case. 1 Changing

and got very good agreement

We

the run ID to

with the previous

Since the amount of smoothing used affects the codes'

run time, run AB was built by turning-off

the smoothing

in Xl and X2 (NSM1 = 0and

NSM2 = 0). The results from run AB were very noisy and considered

unusable

(Figs. A-

lb-A-3b).
Although the results from run AB were not good, it did show us that smoothing
in the radial direction was crucial and had to be used to reduce noise. Run AL was created
from run AA by reducing
smocthJng

the number of axial cells to NX1=

(NSM1 = 0), but setting the radial smoothing

were a bit noisy (Figs. A-lc-A-3c),

2 and turning-off

the run time improved by a factor of 34 as compared

slice was plotted for the field plots, while five slices were plotted
only two cells for the axial integration.

ran to ct = 3000 cm and appeared

current

to the fact that

for runs AA and AB. In

el

Runs AA, AB and AL ali

22.5 kA cases can be found in Fig. A-4.

time-averaged

The

behavior.

Because of the fast running time of run AL, it was felt a parameter
done quickly and efficiently using this case. Nine runs were created
different parameters

only one

to be in a steady state (see Fig. A-16). A time-average

profile versus radius for the h

three runs exhibit nearly identical

to NSM2 = 3. While the results

to run AA. Some of the noise in run AL might be attributed

Fig. A-3, run ALhad

the axial

study

(AC-AK)

and running each case to ct = 400 cm (Table A-l).

could be

by varying

The results from

these runs show little or no change versus run AL at this early time and were not included
in this report.

A.1.2

MODERATE-CURRENT:

Ib = 452 kA (e.g, rb= 49 cm and n_ = 2 x 101 cm -s)

For the h = 452 kA runs in this series, we used run AP (previously ran at LANL) as
our base case. 1 Ali runs in this series (BAl, BC-BG, BI) used two axial cells, except for run
BA2, which used four axial cells. Simulation runs in this series were carried out to different

times.While most runswere carriedout to either

ct= 1600cm or ct= 2000 cre,several
runs ran onlyto ct = 400 cre.FiguresA-ha-A-7h show B0 versusr,Er versusr,and
axially-integrated
Jz versusr forcomparingruns(BAI-BA2, BC-BG, BI)atct= 400 cre,
whileFigs.A-8a-A-10fshow thesame typeofplotscomparingruns (BAI-BA2, BC-BF)

at latertimes(ct= 1600cm and ct = 2000 cm). Resultsand parametersfortheseruns

can be found inTableA-I. For thiscurrent,
a steadystateforthe netcurrentisreached
atabout ct_ 800 cm (seeFig.A-17).

Run BAl was the first run in the series and was used to compare with LANL run
AP. 1 The results of BAl were much noisier than AP (Figs. A-ha-A-10a).
built from BAl by changing IQ = 2 to IQ = 1 (the IQ parameter
count for subcyciing

the particles;

higher numbers

Run BA2 was

is the integer iteration

resolve cyclotron

motion better)

increasing the number of axial cells to NX1 = 4. Also the radial smoothing

off (NSM2 = 0). By comparing

shows the importance

BAl (Figs. A-ha-A-10a)

Run BC was setup by increasing the number of axial particles

run BC (Figs. A-hc-A-10c)
@

that

increasing

was created

the number

are quieter

was turned-

to BA2 (Figs. A-hb-A-10b)

of having IQ _> 2 and the need for radial smoothing

it

(NSM2 > 0).

per cell. The results from

than run BAl (Figs. A-ha-A-10a)

of axial particles

and

and shows

per cell will help reduce noise.

by modifying run BC to become a _hollow-beam"

Run BD

case, that is no particles

were allowed in the first row of cells along the axis. The results of run BD (Figs. A-hdA-10d)

show little or no improvement

using the hollow-beam.

Run BE was generated

by reducing the axial and radial cell size from 0.2 cm to 0.15 cm. The results from run
BE (Figs. A-he-A-10e)

are quieter

than run BC (Figs. A-hc-A-10c)

and indicate the

need for a reduced cell size. Most runs to this point used radial smoothing
but had the axial smoothing
Q

turned-off

(NSM1 = 0).

built from run BE (Figs. A-he-A-10e)

slight noise reduction

Run BF (Figs. A-hf-A-10f)

by setting NSMI=

by using axial smoothing.

(NSM2 = 3),
was

1, and the results showed a

Feeling that the best way to continue to

reduce noise was to increase the number of axial and radial particles per cell, run BG was
created in this manner.

(Figs. A-hc-A-7c),
reduce noise.

By comparing

it is apparent

the results of run BG (Figs. A-hg-A-7g)

that

increasing

Run BI (Figs. A-hh-A-7h)

the number

of particles

to run BC
per cell does

was built from run BG (Figs. A-hg-A-7g)

by

decreasing the number of axial particles per cell by one half. The results showed an increase
in noise and further
Q

proves the importance

of having a sufficiently

particles per cell. Comparing run BI (Figs. A--hh-A-7h)

A-3

large number of axial

with run BAl (Figs. A-ha through

A-7a) shows the importance of having a sufficiently large number of radial particles per
cell. Figure A-11 shows time-average current profiles for runs (BA1-BA2,

O_

BC-BF)which

ran to times > 1600. Again, ali the runs exhibit nearly identical time-averaged

behavior,

except for run BA2.

A.1.3

HIGH CURRENT:

Ib = 1808 kA (e,g., rb =49 cm and nb ----8 10_ cm,_.

Only one run Was made at h = 1808 kA before the Weapons

expired. Run BB (Figs. A--12a-A-12f)

Laboratory account

ran out to ct = 2000 cre. The net current appeared

to reach a steady state at about ct _ 400 cm (see Fig. A-18).

too fewparticles

OI

This run had IO = 1 and

per cells radially, and the results looked similar to runs BAl (Figs. A-5a-

A-10a) and BA2 (Figs. A-5b-A-10b)

in quality. Because of the extreme noise, the only

results that were of much use was the time average current profile (Fig. A-13) taken at
ct = 2000 cm.
A.I.4

O/

CONCLUSION
0]
!t is apparent that several parameters have a great influence on reducing the amount

of noise in a run. Having the axial and radial smoothing (NSM1 and I_iSM2) turned-on is
crucial to noise reduction, and also IQ (the integer iteration count for subcycling particles)
must be set to a value ,___2. The reduction in cell size was important in improving the
simulation results, Having a sufficiently large number of particles per cell appears to have
had the most noticeable effect of all.

The scaling of the current radial-profile

and the net current is summarized

in two

figures. Figure A-14 shows the time average current profile for different values of the beam
current,
current.

and Fig. A-15 shows the net current

Figures A-16a-A-16b

as it scales to the square root of the beam

show a good comparison

axial cells has on the noise in a simulation.

Oi

of the effect that the number

of

Figure A-16a is a time history and frequency

spectrum of the net current for run AA with 129 axial cells with a beam current of 22.5 kA.
Figure A-16b is a time history and frequency spectrum of the net current for run AL with
two axial cells with a beam current of 22.5 kA. After examination one can see that the

A-4
'

number of axial cells has only a slight effect on the noise. Figures A-17 and A-18 show
time history and freqt_ency spectrum

of the net current for beam currents of 452 kA (run

BF) and 1808 kA (run BB), These figures show that

current
@

increases unless more cells and particles

in Figs, A-14-A-15

the noise increases

are used,

as the beam

The net current

values used

were taken from the time history plots shown in Figs. A-16-A-18,

Figures A-16--A-.18 also show that the net current reaches a steady state in a time of order
ct/r_ ~ 200c/wb0r_, Thus,
a rough estimate,

tru,(hr)

the higher current

the number

--, 2(wb, r,/13c)

runs may not have to be run as long.

of CRAY hours to reach steady state appears

(NPC/40),

As

to scale as

where NFC is the number of particles per cell.

By taking an overall view of the runs done in h = 452 kA series, run BG (Figs. A5g-A'7g)

was giving the best results followed by run BI (Figs. A-bh-A-7h)

(ct = 400 cm).

good results.

At later times

(ct >_ 1600 cm) run BF (Figs. A..-bf-A-10f)

Again the major factor in ali cases that returned

(a) smoothing was turned-on,

at early times
gave very

reasonable results was that:

(b) IQ was set to at least two, (c) a sufficiently large number

of particles per cell was used (> 40),

In order to achieve results comparable
run BB (Figs. A-12a-A-12f)

with run BG (Figs, A-bg-A-7g)

would have to have IQ = 2, DXl = DX2 = 0_1 cm, six

particles per cell axially aad seven radially (42 total),

settings

A simulation

with these parameter

would take about 4 hours of Cray time to execute out to a time of ct = 400 cm,

A-5
@

for 1808 kA,

2,25
c1_1, 10
/

-0

05

-1

_L.

,0

13,

27,2

4.1 ,4.

55,5

X2
(a)
,

.
.

,,

i....
--1 .0

13,

27,2

41 , 4.

55,5

x2
(b)
_

2.23

_o94
-0,

,,

,,

_.,

,,,,,

36

-I 6_

X2
(c)
Figure

A-I.

Periodic

simulation

results

comparing

Be versus

r at ct --- 3000 cm for three

ru,,,withIb--22.5kA,(a)runAA,(b)runAB,(c)runAL.
@

A-7

;._ _-2
9 .....

I .....

Y,,_ A' , ....

0,8,3

@I
r"

-0,30
"7
_0
26 1

--0,8_

"1 , 0

131,

27

,2

X2
Ca)

I 0.,.
_--"

I..........

4.1 , 4.

........
,

-o,41

.,107--2
1,
6

I
1,3, 1

I
27.2
X2
Cb}

....I

0,89

u-_O
' 02
-0,84

--1 ,71
--0.5

0,57

,
-0,9f__O,o

55

--

I
....
4.1 ,4.
55,5
Ii
I

1
"

--

@-

13,5

27,5

4.1 ,5

55,5

X2
(c)
Figure

A-2,

Periodic

simulation

results

comparing

Er versus r at ct = 1000 cre for three

runs with l b= 22.5 kA. (a) run AA, (b) run AB, (c) run AL,
A-8

,_1Q -_

J 1-IIqT

.... __._

._,_6[1-_--':' .......
--i-_
..........
'

2,23
1 ,20

-0,8_
o,18,.,

,g

i_,5

1,O9--3
.
2
2 .........

I
2_,5

X2
(a)

J 1-1NT1
......
I-":

I y
41,5.......
_,_

'

'

.........
'i

Zl ,02

_0,07

'
I
I
I
-o,8_............
:--,s _3,s X227 s ,_1s -_-ss,_

Ib

Cb)
_31,Q09
'3
--

1 ,99

JI-INTI
i

I'

--

i--

z_o,88 -,
I

...%

-0,23
I

_ / _,_. ._,_
J ,.__;,._
....
, _,_..
--_,__,_-_
x2

Cc)
Figure A-3,
-0

Periodic simulation results comparing axially-Integrated

J_ versus r at ct =
3000 cm for three runs witt_ Ib = 22,5 kA, (a) run AA, (b) run AB, (c) run
AL,
A..9

O_

LLNLPLASMOIDPROPAGATION

._

12
"_

RUNAA

01

10 ................................................................................................................
_72_......................
i ...........
---t ....
RUNAB

"

0'-I0

1
20

I
3O

I
4O

[
_

OI
60

RADIUS
(cm)

FigureA-4. Time averaged

current
profile
Insteady
stateforrunsat[b = 22,5kA,

,A-ll

"
Q

LI. L PLASMOIDPROPAGATIOIq
,

RUN,BAl
40

,_,

RUNBA2

II

<
,5
FZ

,,,
rx

tr"

RUNBC
20 .....................................................................
+

RUNBD
10 .............................................................................................................................
C3

RUNBE
,. ,

RUNBF
-10

' II

-20
0

I
10

I
20

I
39

I
4O

I
5O

60

RADtUS
(cre)
0
Figure A-1I,.

Time averaged current profile in steady state for runs at I_ = 452 kA.

ti

II1

A-17

II

IdOL PLASMOIDPROPAGATION
100

II
8O

Ib
-20

-40

I
1,0

I
20

I
.30

I
40

I
50

60

RADIUS(cre)

Figure A-13. Time averaged current profilefor run BB near end of"run with A = 1808 kA.

A-19

[LNL PLASMOIDPROPAGATION

-40
0

I
10

i
20

I
30

I
40

i
50

II_,
60

RADIUS
(cm)

Figure A-14.

Time averaged current profile comparing different It, for three runs,

A-20

O
I

,,

LLNLPLASMOIDPROPAGATION

0
2O

0
0

1
500

I
lE +03

1
1.5E+0,3

2E+03

Ibecrn(kA)
O
Figure

A'15.

Net current as Lt scales to the square

A-21

root of beam

current.

PLASMA
g, _7

SHEATH

RUN AA,

Vl_,,,,e3,

N_,,,O,2,,NP,I1
9
4_

,E9,

VTH(2)-.C)

.30

7,40

* g4
247

--

'o0_0
lo

o,7_
_

_._o
_P

_,2_

L_M

.,o

1o 7

OI

,_3oo
1

]_

@J

':
,o_
,oo_

1 ,g6

_ _l_,.,.
J[ j_,
_.,.,L,_,,
L,A.__k,A,
.t g3
F'REQ

(a)

Figure A-16, Periodic

trum of
cells, h
Wo = 3 x
-

_ -._

11

5,89

7 8.=,
1O - l

*_

T,Mm-299e,ooooo

simulation results comparing time history and frequency spec.

the net current for two runs with a different number of axial
= 22.5 kA. Current in units of 1..35 kA, frequency in units of
101 rad/s. (a) run AA with 12g axial cells, (b) run AL with two

@.

U..,K
1_ 1 CellS,

-;.

A-22

II
PLASMA

SHEATN

RUN

44., 4.

BF',
:i ...."

VB-.,,6..3,

NB-.O,2,,,NP-,2,E:IO,

'_ '

I...... -_

""I.....

3,..3,

22,

O0

10 10 _

............
0

50
I

..........

e'4

............

......

1 50
-

'"'

,,10

23

1_
m,

'7
0

0,4.9

O,97
F'REQ

1 ,4.8
TIMEu

II

1 ,95
1999,37000

FigureA-17, PeriodicsimulationBF, time historyand frequencyspectrumof the net

current,Ib = 452 kA. Currentinunitsof 1,35kA, frequencyin unitsof
CUo= 3 X I0Irad/s,

'@

1 00

lO g
10

O-

VTH(2),,.O,30

,_. 32,0

A.23

OI

PLASMA

SHEATH

RUN

BB

19g,

VB',e3,

XlB"_
_
4 P2,NPuS,EtO,

VTH(2)'0,30

II
j

138,

76,
15,

-4(_",00
'

0 50
'

10 11 _'_--:'.....- .... I

1 ,00
;]::,LMI_
........._Pr__1,r_lJM
.......

1 ,50

,10

2300

.....
-....
_......
I...............
'_

10 10
10

1o 6
5
100,00

i_
0.98

1 ,g6
FREQ

2,95
TIME-

3,9.3
1999,2OO00
lt

Figure A.-18, Periodic eimuliLtion BB_ time history aild frequency spectrum of the net
current, Ib = 1808 kA, Current in units of 1,35 kA, frequency in unita of
wo = 3 10I rad/s,
lJ

IL